Friendly reminder that the media wants you to believe that EVERYONE hates you. That the whole world is against you. People with more money and connections than you could ever dream of have tried to squash you. They have a very vested interest in silencing you. They've built an empire that took years to build.

Decades of work to position themselves where they are, all with one end goal in mind: censorship, silencing free speech, regressing society and bringing about an end to free discussion and opposing viewpoints, and driving a race/gender war that leads to more money in their pockets, clicks on their websites, more papers sold, donations to their patreon pages.

The world's largest and biggest names want you gone, and they will stop at nothing to end you.

I dunno man. We had the United Nations talking about us, and the whole media is in panic mode trying to shut us down. Hell, Trump is apparently the leader of gamergate. We might get the white house nigga.

I was thinking more about how a lot of you lot seem to think you can remove the phenomena that lead to the existence of so-called SJW-movement, or that such lobotomized society would be one of only stagnation and wasted potential.

Your apparent sore intolerance against their existence is but a sign of absolute weakness. You fear them, and that fear drives you to respond with agression.

Delusions of grandeur. In case you stupid fucks actually think Trump could and would do anything right and it isn't just another epic controversial meem, you need to realize that the guy is basically a heritage wellfare prince, a nigger tier corporate piece of shit standing in the way of human progress.

You should make a youtube channel where you read out loud all of these manifestos of yours cause I don't read books. You could call it internet intellectual. It doesn't matter that you aren't one IA wasn't an aristocrat either.

Why are you putting words into my mouth, pleb? I didn't say they should be ignored, even though ignoring would be a superior option against making a movement and then tainting the core message with sentimental half-assed reactionary soap-boxing.

>Your apparent sore intolerance against their existence is but a sign of absolute weakness. You fear them, and that fear drives you to respond with agression.

The same applies to them. In fact everything you just said can apply to them.

>SJWs think they can remove the world of "toxic masculinity" and that a lobotomized society like that can function

>SJW fear GG, and that fear drives them to respond with agression.

More to the point, McIntosh and Anita struck first. Or is that the part you missed? That they profited from a victim hood model and put out arguments no better than Thompsons long ago. They got heralded as icons for their bullshit and spread this nonsense into video games. At least movies had critics moslty mature enough to push their circle jerking hipsters into film festivals. Gaming as a young medium doesnt have that luxury and these fuckers are trying to become the dominant voice.

They started this. We (might) be able to end it. At the very least, we go down swinging.

>And yet SJW ideology is one built on fear and self imposed victimhood.

And that's why Redpillers and SJWs are practically the same thing, a bunch of useless crypto-fascists. It's easy to justify all the abusive bullshit, manipulation and other antisocial behaviour when you are the poor lil victim.

>The media's daily obsession with gamergate says otherwise.

I don't remember it being mentioned on any half-proper news-source in a year. You twats, SJWs and reactionaries alike are fighting shadows, because if you fought reality, you couldn't sustain motivation.

>Yeah, because putting women in burqas and driving a race war is "progress."

I'd suggest some primer on marxist ideology, but that shit is fucking confusing. It's a rich twat trying to imagine the lives of poor twats without actually interacting with poor twats. It's more abstract than a Kandinsky piece.

>And that's why Redpillers and SJWs are practically the same thing, a bunch of useless crypto-fascists. It's easy to justify all the abusive bullshit, manipulation and other antisocial behaviour when you are the poor lil victim

They're not anything alike. How many "redpillers" have atreon pages? How many crumple into a sobbing mess when somebody disagrees with them on the internet?

>I don't remember it being mentioned on any half-proper news-source in a year. You twats, SJWs and reactionaries alike are fighting shadows, because if you fought reality, you couldn't sustain motivation.

Are you kidding me? Every single major news site has taken a shot at gamergate, and some continue to do so. CNN, TIME magazine, The New Yorker, The New York Times, NBC, NSNBC, Fox News, and that's just off the top of my head. Somebody here has an archive of all of them I'm sure.

>Is that what everyone besides Trump is doing?

My point is you imply Trump is standing in the way of progress. What progress? Because the regressive SJWs and politically correct nutjobs aren't exactly pushing for progress.

ANd you keep using "reactionary." I often wonder if you sorts even know what that word actually means.

I remember the stories where kings who lost touch of their people decided to actually live amongst them for months, even years, while only rellaying messages for his orders that improved the common peoples lives based on what he saw and his experience. None of these pricks could ever do something like that.

Here's what you need to update mark these books as the equivalent of the Necronomicon, they are from relativist / positivist tier writers and their books are straight up bad for activism as they are design to warp language and promote social control mechanisms via the school of Cultural Marxism (which is what we've been fighting for the last year and a half). And that goes doubly for any communist work written in support of the Civil Rights movement in the states. It's what we are fighting, not something to be proud of or to imitate.

Read those books but treat them as enemy strategy works to be understood, but not to be followed:

Now some recommendations from my list that will help you :

The Elements of Style by Shrunk and White : Presentation pointers for language.

Crimes Against Logic : For Spotting logical loopholes in your opposition, on both sides of the fence.

The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter: It exposes how left wing politics helps to push for more mindless consumerism than ever before.

Filthy Lucre by Joseph Heath: Most of the best arguments in digging need to start from having a basic grounding in economics and finance. This book is not only a good introduction to it, it takes apart a lot of common fallacies on left wing arguments to boot.

Positioning by Al Ries: Imagine a book about communications without the endless manipulative politics, a quick and easy read, that defines what makes messages work effectively in public (hint ironically it's not advertising as you know it).

How to Deal With Narcissists by Micheal Trust: It's an excellent book that takes apart the psychology of the SJW as a manipulative opponent, and those that will try to infiltrate your movement. Read that first before you hit the rest of the list.

Rise Of The Videogame Zinesters by Anna Anthropy : Like Gramsci and Alinsky, this is a bible from the enemy camp, study it for weaknesses but do not follow it's guidelines. It explains the current status and psychological ideals of the San Fran Freak Indie Scene.

And another addition to Thomas Sowell : The Vision of the Anointed, explaining the culture around social justice and public programs.

To be fair, the immigration and education system in America is a failure.

In the immigration systems faults. Any person can just seduce someone for a green card, Obama makes lives for illegal aliens better than people who lawfully immigrated and knowledge of American history doesn't see practical use.

Educations fault is that we just import smart people from other countries, we dumb our kids down in the name of equality and colleges are now showing how fucked we are.

Hell, well never know what nimoy thought about gamers. And I am glad we dont have takei (fuck his doble standard sjw ass. Why complain about white akira and stay silent on black annie asshat?) and the blonde from 8 simple rules is a republican. Take that hipsters

My mother even stated that she would be moving out of country if Trump gets elected because of that.

It's probably because she's friends with a Muslim Egyptian lady (who might I add is a very nice lady and has a huge ass). I don't hate her, nor do I hold any grudge against her because of her religion, in fact I like her quite a bit, but I still think closing off borders to Muslims is a right call, at least until ISIS is dealt with.

Hey it's been a while so I thought I would come by and drop some common sense seeing that two certain boards which will not be named are tanking so hard and a lot of people within both said boards seem to be forgetting who out original enemy is.

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and its people for his daily bread. They are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. They are the jumping jacks, their true masters pull the strings and they dance. Their talents, their possibilities and their lives are all the property of other men. They are intellectual prostitutes. Too many people within GG seem to believe otherwise just because a few agree with their cause and this is worrying.

In the spirit of "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu, if one wishes to know the truth, one must first examine one's own weaknesses and shortcomings to discover how these might impede one from discovering the truth and attaining honorable goals. Indians of the North American Plains honored the role of an entity they called the Trickster (Troll to all you modern types), whose purpose is to keep us alert and wise, so that we may avoid falling prey to deception, and to force us to overcome our weaknesses if we occasionally succumb to the Trickster's clever deceptions. To do this successfully in the realm of truth finding, we must know the tactics and strategies of our opponents in the great media wars of these times, then, we must change our own behaviors and strategies so that we are no longer susceptible to these techniques.

The "New Age" movement, in its attempts to avoid or ignore this web of deceit and negativity through its own double standards, has frequently prevented people from using common sense, logic, and healthy intuition by substituting these necessary human abilities with pseudo religious self righteousness under the guise of "right minded" thinking. (I prefer using both sides of my brain, thank you very much) Rather than help to make sense of the confusion in the world, the New Age has often provided its victims with no more than an extra layer of gullibility. For example, not all herbs are safe to use just because they are "all natural" and sold in health food stores. And do you really believe that all the world's problems will simply solve themselves after we magically ascend into the 5th dimension and the bad people go to Never Never Land? (If so, I have some quality beach front property in the 5th dimension I would like to sell you.)

And I doubt teump will deport citizens woh legally obtained their citizenship through the proper channels. But he will refuse to bring more refugees and attempt to deport and prevent illegal aliens from entering the country.

We cannot loosen the grip of disinformation upon our minds without first understanding how disinformation tactics work. Simply by recognizing and describing specific instances of these tactics, we deny them their power over us.

The following disinformation tactics are listed in approximate order of escalating aggressiveness and complexity. The rules of engagement are stated from the perspective of the disinformation artist, to best understand one's opponents, it is helpful to imagine jumping inside their minds. [For other discussions of disinformation tactics, see refs. 1a-1d.]

1: Ignorance is bliss – "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil"

If possible, ignore the issue entirely. Do not give it credibility by even mentioning its existence. Only if a critical portion of the public begins to arrive at the truth must active disinformation be employed.

For example, scientific reports of weather modification technology appeared regularly in academic science journals until the early 1970s, during which period there were scientific debates, Congressional reports, and international treaties restricting its use. However, after this, such publicly available information all but disappeared, and people who commented on this were labeled "conspiracy buffs". Is has only been recently that public discussion of HAARP (High Altitude Auroral Research Project) has made it necessary for public officials to make declarations of ignorance or denial and to use disinformation tactics listed in the remainder of this report.

A variation of this tactic involves creating a news or information source that purports to exhaustively cover all important aspects of a topic, but, in reality, selectively ignores one or more crucial viewpoints. This tactic has been used against retrovirus researcher Peter Duesberg regarding the AIDS/HIV debate. As more people have become aware of his arguments that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, selective silence is no longer adequate to discredit his views, and increasingly aggressive disinformation tactics described below have been employed.

2: The "how dare you" gambit

If it becomes impossible to ignore the issue, become indignant, focus on side issues, and accuse your opponents of attacking some sacred cow or politically correct idea. Regardless of evidence or logical arguments offered, deny that your opponent's arguments have any credibility. This tactic works especially well when combined with the "Invoke authority" rule (see below).

Even though there are almost no double blind studies of vaccination efficacy in humans, the official hierarchies of the medical and pharmaceutical industries continue to dismiss the huge volume of scientific research that provides evidence of ineffectiveness and serious side effects for specific vaccines, refusing to even discuss the evidence. Critics of vaccination are accused of endangering the public safety (sacred cow) and of contradicting decades of authoritative medical opinions and tradition.

1. Refugees must be willing to go through the chanels to become citizens if they want to live in countries, no special favours.

2. Us, canada and every other country with a military, IN MY OPINION, should send out "peacekeepers" **canada is weenie when coming to name their military troops" to help end the conflict and help rebuild the lands, ignoring islam and the uns objections.

Side step any discussion of the issues, and remind your audience and your opponents of your impeccable credentials. If you represent a government agency or prestigious university, simply claim authoritative knowledge of the subject without offering any justification. If you are lower in the perceived hierarchy, back up your authority with other official sounding citations, such as legal, academic, or scientific journal references. Fabricate or imply such citations if they don't exist (sound familiar?), since few will check them, or select only those citations that support your argument. Use plenty of jargon and technical details you know will be beyond the capacity or training of your audience, and avoid explaining or defining key words and ideas to keep them ignorant. It is the appearance of expertise you must cultivate, not the enlightenment of your audience.

Many medical information websites use this tactic to influence public behavior, medical recommendations are given without any justification other than "we know better, we are the doctors" no references, scant explanations, and no mention of other opinions or options. Frequent use of vague phrases such as "top scientists agree that.." and "the evidence is overwhelming.." should alert one that the invoke authority gambit has been played. As a particularly egregious example of this, when South African President Thabo Mbeki publicly announced his desire to air the debate between defenders and skeptics of the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis, 5000 scientists rushed to sign a declaration saying that HIV does cause AIDS, as if scientific issues were now to be decided not by reasoned debate, but by mob rule and by fiat. [refs. 10a-10b]

Henry Kissinger was a master at invoking authority. His confident style of speaking, together with his ponderous German accent, employment of polysyllabic vocabulary, and reputation as an eminent Harvard professor provided him the tactical capability of extirpating his critic's strategies with rhetorical finesse, in the interest of preserving the hegemony of Western democratic institutions for the enforcement of genocidal, but utilitarian, policies necessary to maximize international stability and detente. Following Kissinger's rhetorical assaults, his audience would have fallen asleep, comforted by his reassurances that even the most dastardly actions had reasonable, erudite explanations.

4: Create a straw man, and knock it down

Ignore the main points of your critics and exaggerate the weakest aspects of their arguments, magnifying their significance such that these weaknesses seemingly destroy the credibility of all criticisms they have made against you. Hold up the weakest of their weak arguments for public display, and show how masterfully you can demolish them, while avoiding any discussion of your critic's main points.

This tactic is easiest to use when technical or scientific subjects or matters of weighty international politics are in debate. The general public often lacks the logical skills or the technical understanding to evaluate each point on its own merit, and, instead, tends to focus on the rhetorical skills of the contenders.

Critics of scientist Peter Duesberg, who has questioned the role of HIV in causing AIDS, often refuse to address his main point that HIV has never been shown to satisfy the basic requirements of Koch's postulates, which have been the standard of proof of infectious disease causation for over a century. Instead, they focus on supposed mistakes and assumptions he makes unrelated to the central issue of Koch's postulates.

The bunkers are being made, but we can only wait. Vancouver and sanfran are ironically against it (both are the tech entertainment capitals of their respective country) so it may not pass. And even if 1 contry messesit up, they all loose it.

>I am starting to think that there are a shitload of SJW's and Goons that lurk here.

>Perhaps outnumbering actual posters.

There's a shitton of them on 4chan, at least. You now say "no shit sherlock, that's why we call it cuckchan" but I didn't realize it was this bad.

Before, even if cuckchan hated GG, most would still point out that it was anti-sjw enough to not be a complete waste.

But back to my stories on a normalfag forum: you had these faggots who hated GG not because they thought it was autistic, but because they unironically bought the narrative. Just recently they were out in the open passing around information on what board they browsed on 4chan and acting like they were in the in crowd, even acknowledging being a crossposter. And I know some of these users have mentioned 8chan in the past too. They also bitch about Reddit like it's some "neckbeard" boogieman and think they know what it takes to meme and act like tryhards.

Just kill me. 4chan really is infested with normalfags and now they are possibly moving on to 8chan while our oldfags continue to spend more time becoming cancer on Twatter. I don't get it.

just proves that goons and SJW have no lives that they lurk 4chan 24h a day not because they like it but because so they can steer the argument to what they think is right. they must be on every thread.

Create arguments to reinforce your position by false yet plausible chains of logic. Only one step in the chain need be faulty to create the desired illusion. Since public education no longer trains students in formal logic, most citizens are incapable of rational thought, and can be fooled by even the most blatantly flawed logic. Common mistakes include: 1 Confusing statistical correlation with proof of cause and effect relationship, 2 "Proof" by analogy, 3 Implicit or unstated assumptions which are invalid or not applicable, 4 Failing to distinguish between a priori and a posteriori probabilities in the application of statistics, 5: Inadequate or excessively vague definition of the class of objects or phenomenon under investigation.

This topic is much too large to discuss here. See the Reference section [refs. 6a-6d] for articles and textbooks on scientific research design and interpretation, and statistics.

One special type of faulty argument appears frequently in nutritional and herbal literature: focusing on the presence (or absence) of one or a few chemical constituents, and then attributing all health effects and pharmacologic actions to these chemicals. For example, much commercial literature promoting the use of canola oil focuses on the omega-3 fatty acid content, yet ignores other potentially harmful constituents. One theory for why Mediterranean type diets may provide significant health benefits is that these diets are high in olive oil and fish, which together provide a relatively greater amount of omega-3 fatty acids than omega-6 fatty acids. Such a balance results in the body producing relatively greater amount of anti inflammatory eicosanoids than pro inflammatory eicosanoids. [ref. 11] Even if we assume that this theory is correct, it is still a leap of faulty logic to conclude that all foods containing high amounts of omega-3 fats, including canola oil, will be healthy to consume. Foods and herbs consist of thousands of natural chemical compounds, and the total effect on the body is often difficult to predict based on only a few chemical constituents. If this type of reasoning were acceptable, it would lead us to conclude that a daily dose of rubber tires for breakfast would be healthy because they are low in cholesterol, or that pulverized wood chips would be healthy merely because they are high in natural fibre.

6: Name calling, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association

Inflame your opponents by ridiculing them, attacking their character and integrity, and accusing them of having hidden agendas and biases. Imply that they are affiliated with other individuals or groups that are politically incorrect ("right wing", "bleeding heart liberal", "communist", "anarchist", "conspiracy buffs", "racist", "religious fanatic"). If such associations cannot be uncovered, manufacture them by planting such persons into the target individual's circle of associates. These tactics will force your opponent to go on the defensive and will temporarily deflect from the central issues.

Guilt by association is a powerful media tool, because the overwhelming majority of people are still victims of Pavlovian conditioning from public education, advertising, and television, and will react as programmed by the media and their corporate masters. Since most people are afraid of being associated with anything politically incorrect, even if they agree with the person being attacked, they will be cowed into silence.

Nah. Just loud minority. D/C tactics obvious as fuck. Instead of debating issues in gaming, they want us to attack people talking about the issues in gaming. Since they got caught with their pants down, they are pretty much throwing a trantrum.

Just look at any other thread bringing up censorship bullshit and anons calling it out. GamerGate is as strong as ever. Essentially GG was nothing more than anons everywhere saying "enough is enough"

The goons and SRS have been always been causing D&C since on 4chan, right now they've been trying hard to fuck over GG with the board drama and spilt /pol/ and /v/ apart now I feel that the /pol/ presence is back in GG now.

This tactic works best in public forums, where, as a member of the audience, one can hurl vicious and irrational invective at the speaker and then disappear, avoiding any need to justify one's attack with a rational reply. The speaker will often be thrown off balance emotionally. In our era of glorified "democracy", the ignorant majority often interprets the sheer number of these attacks as a vote of no confidence, and the ugly dynamics of mob violence may overwhelm any ability to debate and reason logically.

Verbal hit and run artists and hecklers appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public, who increasingly represent an anti intellectual element of our society. These hit and run sympathizers, having been deceived for too long by manipulative authority figures (see "Invoke authority" rule above), may feel that they are being anti authoritarian, but in reality, are only playing into the hands of their puppet masters who manipulate them like pawns in a chess game.

Journalists have increasingly adopted these tactics in public forums, leading public figures, especially politicians, to limit their speeches to nebulous sound bites and politically correct platitudes, as anything of substance will invite noisy debate and verbal hit and run attacks.

Internet forums and public newsgroups are also prone to hit and run attacks, facilitated by the anonymity that the Internet provides. As a consequence, many of the most useful and informative Internet forums have evolved to limit their membership to individuals approved by the group or by the sponsors, providing for expulsion if a member engages in hit and run behavior or "flaming". However, this trend has not solved the problem entirely, as it has led, instead, to a compartmentalization of interest groups, each of which decides which ideas are politically correct within its domain, and which ideas are subject to open season for ridicule and hit and run attacks by members.

8: Crank up the rumor mill to create complexity, enigmas

Create an atmosphere of rumor mongering. Assign your agents, who will pretend to be sympathetic to the opposition group, to generate unfounded rumors so that you can criticize their lack of credibility. Embellish the plain truth with exaggeration and a few well chosen lies, later, expose these embellishments as lies to discredit the original truth by association.

If certain facts are in danger of being publicly revealed, the media powers may arrange for doctored variations of the facts to appear first in supermarket tabloids and other disreputable sources, surrounded by outrageous and preposterous lies. College educated people have been well trained to reflexively reject such information (But you already knew that), which will have been permanently tainted by its sleazy debut. "Oh, so you read it in the National Whatever? And was it on the same page as the article about the imminent alien invasion from Andromeda?" (Smirk, smirk. We college graduates know that only the credulous masses believe such nonsense.) With the advent of the Internet, another variation would be: "Oh, so you read it on the Internet did you? We know how reliable that is, don't we? Did you find it on the S4T Youtube channel?"

Another common example of this tactic is to create so many differing versions and variations of the alleged facts that most people will give up trying to sift through the mountains of alleged facts and disinformation. The only people with sufficient dedication and persistence to pursue the truth will become known as fanatics. Classic 20th century examples of this tactic include studies of the JFK assassination and the UFO phenomenon. As a testament to the effectiveness of disinformation by rumor mill, one can no longer even say the words "UFO" or "JFK assassination" without eliciting smug and knowing looks among middle class, college indoctrinated robots.

To protect important secrets from the public, establish multiple layers of plausible fall back positions. If superficial facts are exposed, have plausible but relatively simple stories to explain these. If deeper secrets are exposed, have progressively more detailed fall back scenarios ready to "confess" to the public, based on "discoveries" of "oversights and misunderstandings". Such "confessions" may add to one's public credibility, as the public always enjoys well enacted displays of penitence and remorse for one's mistakes, especially if accompanied by piety, somber tears, and a display of the American flag in the background. I bring this up due to the fact that people who were supposed to be on our side have had twitter DMs in private to not only END the tag, but try and take it over as well and their damage control was biblical.

Revelations of horrific medical experiments on U.S. citizens by universities and military research departments following World War II were accompanied by solemn declarations that such atrocities were merely due to lack of stringent regulatory controls, and that efforts would be made thereafter to enforce informed consent rules in medical experimentation. In reality, there is much evidence that such research continues to this day, only under greater secrecy. [Refs. 4a-4j. One must remember to apply all the rules of disinformation to these references, as the truth rarely pops out so cleanly or easily.]

10: Betrayal by trusted source

Establish a reliable source of daily news that can occasionally be used to propagate strategically important lies (usually those lies that help maintain billion dollar corporate profit streams). People inevitably use shortcuts to determine their own truths, and after having decided that a source is reliable after an initial evaluation period, will be less likely to question its authority.

This tactic is common, though it requires a massive investment in time and resources, once a source has been used as a conduit for too many falsehoods and disinformation campaigns, it loses its credibility. In this event, the organizational resources may be dismantled and reorganized under a new name and venue.

Upon experiencing multiple and continual betrayals by trusted news and information sources, citizens usually choose one of two options: 1 The majority gives up trying to figure out the truth and retreats into mindless diversions (sitcoms, soap operas, game shows, gambling, TV football, etc.), dismissing the quest for truth as the ravings of conspiracy fanatics or, 2 A small minority becomes motivated by annoyance and frustration to pursue the truth with great tenacity.

Which category describes you?

Disinformation artists use a variation of the betrayal by trusted source tactic when they deceptively mimic the religious, political, or ethnic biases and beliefs of others to gain their trust. Salesmen have become notorious for gaining entry into people's homes by claiming to have been referred by a minister or priest of the victim's church. Neurolinguistic programmers refer to this tactic as pacing and leading: agree with the other person's beliefs and match their mannerisms until he or she becomes comfortable and trusting, then gradually lead that person to the desired goal (buying something, believing a new idea, etc.).

Most of us remember times that we fell for this tactic, when people we assumed were our allies pretended to agree with our biases and beliefs, hoping to gain some advantage from us.

That's those fucking newfags who've turned /pol/ into a hugbox trust me when I say /pol/ still has your back its just we don't go on /pol to discuss stuff anymore due to it being in shit state with our mods and retards.